Let's Stop Using the Word "Family" When We Mean "People"

At present, millions of Americans are being impacted by the cuts to SNAP benefits, which will make celebrating Thanksgiving much more difficult for recipients.  And I feel nothing but sympathy for them; I’ve donated plenty of food items to pantries over the years.  So, at the risk of sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge, I ask, why do news outlets keep mentioning “families” as being in need of help?  What about individuals that aren’t part of families?
​
One doesn’t have to look very deeply to see that despite the declining marriage rates, we still live in a world built for families.  This is evident in how our politicians refer to helping American families and advertisements that encourage us to donate money to food to low-income families.  While this is certainly well-meaning on the surface, such language makes millions of other people invisible, people who may not be part of a traditional nuclear family unit.

To be sure, family is a broad term.  My cat/son Chester and I are a family.  Communities of singles often come together to share housing.  But our society doesn’t see it that way.  The pricing of homes usually assumes multi-income households, and even studios are overpriced.  Health insurance and leave policies often prioritize the married, i.e., the Family Leave and Medical Act, which only allows one to take leave to care for a spouse, child, or parent.  Siblings, cousins, and other extended family members don’t qualify.

The media is complicit too.  Advertisements overwhelmingly show couples and families enjoy their holiday meals.  And let’s not forget that annual stream of holiday movies that portray the urban career woman visiting her rural hometown, falling in love with the flannel-wearing, blue-collar guy, and uprooting her life to upbeat music just before the end credits roll.

In 2023, 32% of SNAP recipients reported living alone and 63% reported having no children.  To be sure, benefits are skewed toward households of one; the limit to net monthly income is $1,305 for a one-person household while for a two-person household, it’s $1,763.  This would mean the limit is $881.50 per person.  Hypothetically, a married person would need to earn less money than a singleton to be eligible.  However, a single parent would (in theory) get enough extra funds to support a child.  So it’s equitable in that sense. 

However, not every program considers the needs of those who fall outside the traditional family unit.  For example, this inequity carries over to how doctors treat patients.  Joan DelFattore, a colleague and close friend of mine, was diagnosed with cancer.  An oncologist suggested a much less effective form of treatment due to the fact that she wasn’t part of a traditional family structure (i.e., didn’t have a spouse or children).  Fortunately, her chosen family, a group of friends, provided support.  They helped her find a doctor who “got it,” and, as of this writing, she’s in remission.

Journalists and politicians are aware of how language shapes perception.  They likely use the term “families” because it’s safe and meant to inspire empathy.  After all, who doesn’t want to support a family?  Unfortunately, it helps reinforce harmful stereotypes around singles, namely that they’re struggling due to personal shortcomings rather than structural inequities. Such stereotypes fellow under the category of singlism.

This holiday, my wish is for policymakers, politicians, journalists, scholars, religious institutions, and the general public to use more inclusive words like “residents,” “neighbors,” “friends,” “households,” “community members,” or “people,” rather than “families.”  This kind of language isn’t just cosmetic, but it can subtly influence who gets prioritized in any initiative.  While the holiday season celebrates abundance, it loses its meaning if the language inadvertently states that only one type of person is deserving of it.